On whose authority did Luther remove the Apocrypha?

[rsr]

I think Luther, however, is the key figure in his decision to print the Aprocrypha with the preface. (Zwingli never contemplated that, so far as I know.)

Calvinists were the driving force behind exclusion of the Apocrypha from the canon, as evidenced by the Geneva Bible's (in late editions) omitting the books entirely.

While I do not disagree with your chronology above, I think actions by the British and Foreign Bible and the American Bible Society, for example, were more recognition of the theological landscape than a hard break with the past and thus represent a progressive movement that had been largely fulfilled long before the dates in question.

 

[Matt Black]

Which brings us full circle back to the OP...any answers?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

The silence is deafening...

Unless anyone can come up with a good reason to endow an individual with that sort of authority, I am forced to conclude from the silence that the answer to the OP's question is "none at all whatsoever", which means the Apocrypha is canonical, for the following reasons:-

1. The DC books were in the OT at the time of the apostles and were in the OT used by the Church thereafter until the Reformation

2. The Council of Carthage, which settled the issue of the NT Canon, made no mention of the DCs and thus was content for the status quo thereof to continue

3. The 'Council of Jamnia/ Yavneh', whilst it removed the DCs from the JEWISH OT, was a purely Jewish council and removed the DCs as an anti-Christian measure, thus reinforcing the view that the DCs were part of the CHRISTIAN OT. Again, Carthage makes no reference to this.

4. Marcion was condemned by the Church for purporting to tamper with the Christian OT including the DCs, thus establishing the precedent that no individual was authorised to pronounce on canonicity

5. Flowing from the above and particularly #4, whilst Jerome may have doubted the canonicity of the DCs, he had no more authority or locus standi to do so than Luther ie: none at all

So, unless anyone can adequately refute the above, I propose to dust down my old translation of the Vulgate and regard these books as part of Holy Scripture...

Anyone...?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

Let us not forget:

The Koran, the Book of Mormon, etal. How can we exclude any "Holy Book"?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Kiffen]

I don't think we should ridicule Matt's valid observations and comparing the Apocrypha with the Book of Mormon or the Koran is ridiculous. The Apocrypha does have some valid and interesting history. The Anabaptists were the only Reformers (and there still are some who hold this view) who I know accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Matt, I know that Jerome only reluctantly included the Apocrypha books because he was forced too. I also believe many Catholics questioned these books validity. Either 1 or 2 Maccabbees even states about there being no prophetic revelation for years, implying that the writer of Maccabbees did not regard his books as Scripture. I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church accepted them as part of the canon until Trent in 1546.

The earliest Protestant Church confession, the Augsburg Confession 1530 does not address these books but the 39 Articles of Religion in 1562 of the Church of England does reject the canonicity of the Apocrypha though viewing them as usefull reading. Later the Westminister in 1643 (Presbyterian) and the Second London Baptist in 1689 rejects it as part of the Canon.

With Luther and the Lutherans it did not seem controversial to not include these books. I have not seen a well balanced book on this subject but most today reject them because of terrible historical errors in many places. Usefull reading just not Scripture.

 

[rsr]

Sorry for the deafening silence, but the time difference got in the way ...

So, unless anyone can adequately refute the above, I propose to dust down my old translation of the Vulgate and regard these books as part of Holy Scripture...

Matt, you are certainly welcome to do what you will, but I wouldn't pick a translation of the Vulgate when new translations from the texts are available. However, I think you are asking for irrefutable proof when there is none, or would not accept it.

The canon, as I understand it, was much more fluid (like much of Latin Rite dogma) before the Council of Trent.

Compare, if you will, the canon approved by Trullo (692):

"Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read "of Judith, one" ;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach."

This list includes one book (III Maccabees) not included in the Trent canon and excludes Tobith and the Wisdom of Solomon.

If the canon were so fixed, why would Cardinal Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) write this in 1532:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

In addition, why should you accept the Latin Rite canon at all? Why not the Orthodox canon? Or the Coptic canon (if you can find a single one.) Which one, would you say, is correct?

"1. The DC books were in the OT at the time of the apostles and were in the OT used by the Church thereafter until the Reformation"

In the Greek; but in the Hebrew? There were two OT canons, Palestinean and Alexandrian.

"2. The Council of Carthage, which settled the issue of the NT Canon, made no mention of the DCs and thus was content for the status quo thereof to continue"

Was Carthage a general council?

"3. The 'Council of Jamnia/ Yavneh', whilst it removed the DCs from the JEWISH OT, was a purely Jewish council and removed the DCs as an anti-Christian measure, thus reinforcing the view that the DCs were part of the CHRISTIAN OT. Again, Carthage makes no reference to this."

Quite possibly true; or a reflection of the Palestinean canon.

"4. Marcion was condemned by the Church for purporting to tamper with the Christian OT including the DCs, thus establishing the precedent that no individual was authorised to pronounce on canonicity"

Maybe. But Marcion committed graver errors, which persuaded him to create his own canon.

"5. Flowing from the above and particularly #4, whilst Jerome may have doubted the canonicity of the DCs, he had no more authority or locus standi to do so than Luther ie: none at all"

If Luther and Jerome were alone, or even a tiny minority, I might agree, but I do not see that as the case.

[ January 11, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Ellis Murphree]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ellis, are you referring eg to the Book of Enoch, quoted in Jude ?

The books and sections of the pseudapigrapha are countless. They include supposed epistles from Mary the mother of Jesus, Barnabus, Apollos, and many others. They simply don't bare the marks of inspiration, or were proved to be from sources other than what they claimed.

 

[Ellis Murphree]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry for double post, but what do people make of the references to Apocryphal verses in the NT?

Matt,
The portions of the Apocrypha and pseudapigrapha that are quoted in the N.T. does not mean that those books are inspired. Sections of the Apocrypha and pseudapigrapha are historically, and in every other way, true! A prime example is the sections from the Books of Enoch that Jude mentions. While there is some speculation that some of Enoch may have been written AFTER Jude, it really doesn't matter. If Jude (under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit) quoted from an uninspired book (Enoch), it simply means that that uninspired book must have contained truth!

There were several criteria for determining if a book was to be part of the canon. The basic criterian boiled down to three things:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?

2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?

3. Does the message in the book tell the truth about God?

The rejected books (Apocryphal and pseuapigraphyl) do not meet the criteria.

 

[rsr]

Ellis, your list appears to be based upon Geisler.

They are good questions, but the ultimate question is "Who gets to decide which books meet the criteria?" even with those stipulations. And when did those criteria become operative?

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but the Jews decided that AFTER the Church began. If your appeal for the exclusion of the Apocrypha is to the work of the rabbis under Gamaliel II at Jamnia/ Yavneh from c90AD onwards (as I suspect it is) then I think that the point needs to be made that the OT in use by Jesus, His disciples and the Early Church in so far as they understood Greek would almost certainly have been the LXX, which contains the Apocrypha; Jamnia made the decision to revert to the Hebrew text ( sans Apocrypha) as a way of distancing themselves theologically from the Early Church ( and in particular the Jewish-Christian minim or sectaries) and 'go native' by reverting to Hebrew. Thus the rejection of the Apocrypha by the post-Temple Judaism has to be seen as a move by Judaism away from Christianity. Surely that gives strength to the argument that the Apocrypha was used by the Church - and still should....? It was in the Church Bibles for over 1000 years - the RCC didn't add it in, Luther removed it - should he have done and who was he to have done it?


Yours in Christ

Matt

I don't know but I think that you are incorrect. Once again I have turned to Josh McDowell in his The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

He quotes some scholars as concluding that the rabbis at Jamnia reached no conclusions about what books were in the cannon and what were not. He goes on to point out that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC.

So if you are saying that the Apocrypha belongs to the Old Testament, you are making the Jews laugh (and the Protestants too).

I think that you are wasting your time with the debating points of the 19th century German professors. Their scholarship was sloppy and their case has been disproven. You need to get some good Evangelical scholarship to solve these issues for you.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Ellis Murphree:
They simply don't bare the marks of inspiration

This is not meant personally although it appears to be, but who are you (or indeed I or any other individual) to decide or pronounce on that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for the comeback, rsr, which I'm still mulling over.

I wonder what KJVOists make of this issue, since their beloved TR is based on the LXX/ Alexandrian Canon which of course contains the DCs...surprised no-one from that camp has chipped in yet

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rsr]

Matt: While there is a good deal of extant literature asserting that the Jewish canon was closed at Jamnia, that now seems unlikely.

Instead, it is most likely that the canon was closed well before then, that Jamnia represented not a council in the church sense but an academy of rabbis, and that it discussed only one book from the wisdom writing. Jack Lewis, whose writings I unfortunately do not have access to, debunked Jamnia and has been followed by successive scholars.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I don't know but I think that you are incorrect. Once again I have turned to Josh McDowell in his The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

Of course, one could probably expect a biased presentation of the facts concerning the Deuterocanonicals from Mr.McDowell.

He quotes some scholars as concluding that the rabbis at Jamnia reached no conclusions about what books were in the cannon and what were not. He goes on to point out that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC.

Whether or not Jamnia made conclusions regarding the canon, one could argue that they did not speak for all Jews. Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion used the broader canon of the LXX, and this is supported by the fact that the earliest Church Fathers treated these books as Scripture without distinction (from the "protocanon"). To this day the Ethiopian Jews continue to use these books in their canon.

So if you are saying that the Apocrypha belongs to the Old Testament, you are making the Jews laugh (and the Protestants too).

I guess that depends on which group of Jews and which group of Protestants as there are some of both that accept these books as genuine parts of the OT.

 

[rsr]

Thomas, thanks for your input, but this is a Baptist-only forum.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Bro. James]

"Holy writings?"

Joseph Smith Jr. testifies that he received several revelations from God--in the form of personal visits and some tablets which translated to the Book of Mormon. Joe Jr. also claims that "Pearl of Great Price" was given by God. There are many quasi-historical/religious references in the above.

What makes the above testimony true or false?

The Koran has historic/religious references. i.e. The Flood of Noah is referenced--the landing of the ark is on a different mountain top than Ararat--same range, different peak.

Those who follow The Koran are monotheists--so are the Judeo-Christians. Whose book is right?
Are they all right? There are millions of Mormons and millions of Muslims. How could all of these be wrong?

Give me the revelation of: I AM THAT I AM--through His only begotten Son, by way of the Gospels, Apostle Paul, and others in the Book called The New Covenant.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

So, how do you KNOW (or how do YOU know?) that the Bible you have contains the correct number of books (or indeed the correct books per se) from the OT?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Apologies for bad interlinear reply but can't do multiple quotes

Originally posted by rsr:[QB/]
If the canon were so fixed, why would Cardinal Cajetan (an opponent of Luther) <snip>
[/QB]

Cardinal Cajetan was mistaken as to the importance of Jerome's distinction, as well as to its significance?


rsr further quoth:

"In the Greek; but in the Hebrew? There were two OT canons, Palestinean and Alexandrian."

How does this prove the one is binding on Christians and the other not? That there were two canons at the time says nothing whatever to the canonicity of the DC's in Christendom.


rsr goes on:

"Was Carthage a general council?"

No. So what?


rsr again:

"Quite possibly true; or a reflection of the Palestinean canon."

See above response vis-a-vis "two canons".


quote from rsr:

"Maybe. But Marcion committed graver errors, which persuaded him to create his own canon."

So? The principle remains the same.


Final quote from rsr:

"If Luther and Jerome were alone, or even a tiny minority, I might agree, but I do not see that as the case."

Then, or now? All of Christendom accepted the DC's with the exception of the odd (and I do mean odd) heretic or ne'er-do-well, right down to the eve of, and indeed the whole week after, the Reformation. That things have swung the other way since then shows nothing except perhaps the power of foolishly equating what is (how Bibles are printed by Protestant or Protestant-influenced printing firms) with what should be.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

How do we know if we have all the Word of God?

He does not do anything halfway or with error.

His Word is Truth--He has been faithful to preserve His Word through His remnant--the pillar and ground of the Truth. He did not post it on the bulletin board in the town square. He gave it to His elect and told them to use it as a witness to the world. His elect have died to remain faithful to the words thereof. His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. Another they will not follow.

Is it possible there were more people out there with a "cannon" besides the Vatican and defrocked Roman priests? What scripture did the "heretics" have?

Preach the Word.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[HankD]

So, how do you KNOW (or how do YOU know?) that the Bible you have contains the correct number of books (or indeed the correct books per se) from the OT?

The same way you know, by a faith choice.

The canon of Scripture is of greater complexity than just the authority of the Apocrypha.

For example, how do you know that the Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Thomas or the shephard of Hermas are not canonical?

I don't agree completely with the contents of the following site, but there are some provocative questions (as are some of yours) to consider.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm

So, unless anyone can adequately refute the above, I propose to dust down my old translation of the Vulgate and regard these books as part of Holy Scripture...

You have made your potential choice and expressed it publicly.
This is the human right of Individual Soul Liberty.

Personally, I believe you are wrong (if you carry through with your proposal), the Apocrypha is not inspired Scripture.


HankD